No links as of yet but the tribunal has decreed that Aishah Azmi, was not religiously discriminated against when the school suspended her for refusing to take off her veil in the class room. However her claim of victimisation has been up held and she has been given compensation of Â£1,100!

But I think it is good that a legal precedent has been set about the veil.

No links as of yet but the tribunal has decreed that Aishah Azmi, was not religiously discriminated against when the school suspended her for refusing to take off her veil in the class room. However her claim of victimisation has been up held and she has been given compensation of Â£1,100!

But I think it is good that a legal precedent has been set about the veil.

No links as of yet but the tribunal has decreed that Aishah Azmi, was not religiously discriminated against when the school suspended her for refusing to take off her veil in the class room. However her claim of victimisation has been up held and she has been given compensation of Â£1,100!

But I think it is good that a legal precedent has been set about the veil.

Click to expand...

Â£1,100 wont last long, victory to the legal precedent.

Click to expand...

But since she has a partial win does that not mean that technically she gets to keep her job?

I support her right to wear the veil but I just don't think there is any place for the veil in the class room.

How does asking one to take off the veil while teaching become victimisation?

No one asked her to disrobe.

Click to expand...

Ray

As I had said in the post just above Yours, the victimisation part of the verdict was nothing to do with her being told to take off her veil - it was in fact because the council didn't follow the laid down procedure for grievances.

She said she would remove the garment, but not in front of male colleagues.

...

Ms Azmi later admitted she had taken the veil off to be interviewed for the job by a male governor.

Click to expand...

If she felt so strongly about men seeing her face she wouldn't have gone through the interview process. I'm pleased that the judgement has gone against the claim for religious discrimination, but annoyed that she's received damages. I don't think that veils have any place in our society - I can accept hair-coverings, as several religions use this - but niqabs and burqas to me represent a physical separation from society.

As for communicating with the students she interacts with, whilst accepting that eyes 'speak', so do facial expressions and I'd suggest that the majority of people like to see the full facial expressions of someone they're communicating with. Arguments have been put forward that blind people manage perfectly well without seeing the faces of people they speak with, but their visual limitations aren't through choice.

Finally, when teaching a language, especially to those for whom it is not their natural tongue as was the case with many of the pupils she helped teach, mimicking the shape of the mouth and the placement of the tongue of the teacher is essential to ensuring correct enunciation.

LONDON (Reuters) - A tribunal ruled on Thursday that a Muslim teaching assistant had not been discriminated against when the school where she worked asked her to remove her veil.

The case of 24-year-old Aishah Azmi against Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire has attracted nationwide interest after former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Muslim women who wore full veils made community relations difficult.

Straw had said he would prefer women not to wear veils because they acted as a "visible statement of separation and difference."

The veiled Azmi told reporters at a news conference afterwards that her veil, which leaves just the eyes exposed, had never hindered her teaching.

"The veil does not cause a barrier. I can teach perfectly well with the veil on," she said, adding that veiled women were not "aliens".

The publicity surrounding the case has highlighted the sensitive issue of separation among Britain's 1.8 million Muslims.

A growing conviction the government has to tackle segregation in the wake of last year's suicide bomb attacks by British Islamists which killed 52 in London has led ministers to broach a topic once considered too delicate to raise.

Click to expand...

Good. Hopefully due to utter commonsense. I hope her lawyer fees top the thousand and so quid given in damages for the related matter.

I hope her lawyer fees top the thousand and so quid given in damages for the related matter.

Click to expand...

Don't be daft: you and I are paying for her to defend her 'right' to impose her fundamentalism on the children in the school:

"I am taking the advice of my legal team at Kirklees Law Centre and will be looking to appeal against that decision."

Click to expand...

It's part of Kirklees council: your and my taxes have paid for her mischievious case, and will pay for her mischievious appeal, and for her damages.... Orwell couldn't write this and have people believe it...

I hope her lawyer fees top the thousand and so quid given in damages for the related matter.

Click to expand...

Don't be daft: you and I are paying for her to defend her 'right' to impose her fundamentalism on the children in the school:

"I am taking the advice of my legal team at Kirklees Law Centre and will be looking to appeal against that decision."

Click to expand...

It's part of Kirklees council: your and my taxes have paid for her mischievious case, and will pay for her mischievious appeal, and for her damages.... Orwell couldn't write this and have people believe it...

She doesn't need to be: the quote illustrates (unless she's deliberately lying) that she is receiving her legal assistance from 'Kirklees Law Center'.

2 seconds on Google will take you to their homepage in the council's website, where they advertise their free assistance and representation.

They are funded by you and me, as taxpayers: so we have paid for her representation, and any future action in court. Her damages, I presume, will come from the education budget of the local council: further evidence of her concern for the children she professes to want to help... (edit - which means, of course, that we've also paid for them...)